The national debate regarding teacher evaluation and accountability has shifted
dramatically over the past decade, and it is sometimes assumed that teacher policies have shifted accordingly. The belief that recent federal education initiatives—first NCLB and now RTTT—
have significantly altered teacher policy systems has been fairly widespread in scholarly work, journalistic reports, and general public discourse. But surprisingly little is known about the specific content of teacher workforce policies, and this assumption has never been empirically tested. So far as an extensive literature search has been able to determine, no comprehensive analysis has yet been done on the district policy systems governing teachers in any of the nation‘s 15,000 public school districts. Given Race to the Top‘s much-increased emphasis on teachers and the policies that govern them, study of teacher workforce policy is now even more worthy of attention. As McGuinn (2012) writes, ―Perhaps no issue better represents RTTT‘s potential to drive change in discourse, politics, and policy—as well as its limitations—than teacher accountability‖ (p. 145). Study of RTTT‘s politics will continue, and the effects of RTTT will be examined for years down the line. At the same time, an imperative focus for scholarship is the actual policies that are produced by politics and cause the effects eventually observed.
Overview of Study. This study is an exploratory analysis in a little-studied area,
investigating the teacher policy system that governs the New York City teacher workforce. The study sheds new light on the nature of the limitations of federal (and, in some respects, state) influence on teacher policy in a highly-fragmented education system. It illustrates how the formal teacher employment contract is shaped by multiple, co-existing policy subsystems, highlighting the local, complex nature of teacher workforce policy. The study extends
understanding of the degree to which district policies implemented may vary significantly from highly-visible federal mandates, and provides the specific analysis of teacher policy necessary for evaluation and reform in this crucial domain of public education policy. Finally, it explores ideological paradigms and alignments evident in policies, focusing in particular on the state and the professions as representing current conflicting ideologies around teachers and teaching.
The rapidly-shifting nature of teacher policy and lack of prior empirical work in this area require that this study be understood as exploratory; ongoing research will be crucial as
developments in this large, complex policy arena continue to unfold. This study does not specifically test theory predictions, although it applies analytical frameworks derived from theory, delimiting the study‘s focus and beginning the process of theory testing (Yin, 1994). The case study method was utilized as an appropriate empirical approach for exploratory research: investigating ―a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context‖ (p. 13), informing understanding of a little-studied phenomenon, and laying the foundation for future work. An important limitation of this method is that it does not allow generalization to the population of U.S. school districts, although findings are potentially ―generalizable to theoretical propositions‖ (p. 10).
The unit of analysis for this exploration was the school district. New York City was chosen as the study site for several reasons. First, New York has long been considered at the nation‘s forefront in standards and accountability (Quality Counts, 1997, 2000, 2006). Focus on accountability in New York City intensified under the Bloomberg/Klein administration,
positioning the New York City public schools as a leading district in school reform: ―New York City seems to have drawn together many of the threads of what is emerging as a national
education agenda, and is doing so on a massive scale‖ (O'Day, Bitter, & Gomez, 2011, p. 1). New York State recently won one of the nation‘s largest RTTT grants, submitting an application which had a strong emphasis on teacher evaluation (Kolbe & Rice, 2012), and received the second-highest score in the country, representing the high degree to which the state‘s application
was aligned with the RTTT reform agenda (Nicholson-Crotty & Staley, 2012).7 New York‘s high visibility in the school reform landscape has drawn recent scholarly attention, including focus on teacher policy in particular. The editors of Education Reform in New York City (O'Day et al., 2011), for example, describe ―human capital management policies‖ as a major emphasis of New York City‘s reform activity, and include several chapters on teacher policy. Superfine et al. (2012) use New York as one of two highlighted states in a discussion of RTTT, writing that RTTT ―has proven effective at leveraging reforms in New York in line with the priorities set forth by the Obama administration, especially in the area of teacher workforce governance.‖ New York City thus provides a good site for study of the current leading edge in teacher evaluation and accountability policy.
The need for ongoing research on New York teacher policy is also evident in this very new work. Study of New York City teacher policies under Joel Klein‘s school reform initiative has focused exclusively on supply side policies (e.g. Childress et al., 2011; Goertz et al., 2011), while the demand side teacher policies which Klein (2011) himself emphasizes as the crucial obstacle to school reform have been disregarded. Superfine et al. (2012) describe New York State as ―the entity primarily responsible for making key decisions about the evaluation and career trajectories of individual teachers‖ in the new teacher evaluation system; the authors further maintain that the state ―will use its evaluation system to inform a range of personnel decisions, including those governing tenure, dismissal, and compensation‖ (pp. 66-67). How the state‘s new evaluation system will actually play out as policy implementation unfolds in districts,
7
In the first two rounds of the RTTT competition in 2010, a total of 46 states and Washington D.C. applied for RTTT funds. Eleven states and DC received grants, including New York. New York‘s final RTTT application received a score of 464.8 out of 500 points: the second highest score in the country, exceeded only by
however, remains unknown. Overall, this recent work underscores the growing importance of research on New York‘s teacher evaluation and accountability policies.
This study was guided by the following questions:
1. What is the content and nature of the policy system—i.e. laws, regulations, collective bargaining agreements—governing the work of public school teachers in New York City, as the set of ―mechanisms that translate substantive policy goals into concrete actions‖ (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 133)? What does this policy system hold teachers accountable for and how? A chief aim of the study was to understand the mechanisms defining and ensuring minimum teacher competence on a systemic workforce level, and protecting students from teachers who fall below a defined floor of minimally acceptable teaching practice.
2. What is the degree of alignment between New York City teacher policies and: (a) the outcomes-based accountability framework represented by NCLB and RTTT, and (b) district policies governing other school stakeholders?
3. How do the state teacher evaluation mandates associated with RTTT appear to be translating into formal district policies? How do the new teacher evaluation policies fit into the overall district teacher policy system?
4. Consistent with newer work in new institutional theory, McDonnell (2009) recently wrote: ―I would predict that the tensions between political and professional authority will continue to be reflected in future [accountability] policy and its implementation‖ (p. 423). Is this kind of state-profession tension evident in district policies? How are those tensions expressed and what different ideas do they manifest? What ―logics of action‖ characterize policies?
The study explored two primary hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that actual policy design at the district level would be more complex and less congruent with recent federal mandates than has sometimes been assumed, in part because pre-existing teacher policy subsystems significantly moderate implementation and ongoing function of new policies. The second hypothesis was that current teacher policies would continue to evidence primary alignment with the professionalization paradigm core to education scholarship on teachers and teaching, even in the face of more than a decade of government pressure towards outcomes- based accountability. Research findings provided support for both hypotheses. The study shows that the relationship between a federal or state mandate and district polices is often uncertain for two reasons. First, policies can be altered in substantial ways through both state- and district- level rulemaking and negotiation processes. Second, pre-existing policies can play a very important role in the way new mandates are translated into district policies, moderating their effects significantly. One result of this in New York City is that, notwithstanding new federal and state legislation and a great deal of media focus on teacher evaluation, policy mechanisms holding teachers accountable for their work remain very weak. Finally, the study shows that state pressure for outcomes-based accountability has significantly influenced policies for all school stakeholders except for teachers. At the same time, teacher policies remain strongly congruent with the professionalization paradigm emphasized in the academic discipline of education. This appears to contribute to a problematic degree of incoherence, or misalignment, currently evident between teacher policies and policies for other public school stakeholders.
The investigation was guided by a conceptual model that theorizes district teacher policy as shaped by multiple policy subsystems and by the interactive relationships between these subsystems, as discussed in Section 1.5. Both the specific design of policies and their interactive
effects are crucial, and analysis must therefore capture and integrate the full range of relevant policy subsystems. Examination of individual policy subsystems in isolation provides an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the policy system as a whole. The commonly-observed phenomenon of ―unexpected consequences‖ results in part from analysis that focuses on narrow subsets of teacher policies, failing to take all teacher policies into account. At the same time, all relevant policies are not immediately evident. The academic literature includes occasional passing reference to the significance of less-visible teacher policies. For example, Warren, Ellen and Marla (2006) mention the powerful role of ―an invisible infrastructure of central office policies and practices that are often hidden from public view‖ (p. 193). Grissom and Herrington (2012) observe that an critical factor in how government-driven reform efforts are actually carried out in schools is the fact that teachers ―have considerable autonomy in practice, particularly regarding the areas of teaching and learning…and an array of civil service
protections often unique to teachers‖ (p. 7). Policies relevant to the teacher autonomy and civil service protections that the authors refer to are critical components of the overall teacher policy system. Klein (2011) highlighted a key domain of New York City teacher policy when he recently maintained that ―notwithstanding union rhetoric that ‗tenure is merely due process,‘ firing a [New York City] public-school teacher for non-performance is virtually impossible.‖ Klein‘s ongoing combat with the teachers union was well known, and his claim cannot be accepted at face value. At the same time, this aspect of teacher policy, too, is crucial and merits careful analysis. Important policies may thus be obscure or overlooked, even if not actually ―invisible.‖ The identification of the full range of state and city teacher policies, and their analysis as a systemic whole, was critical to this investigation.
The state, in particular, plays a crucial role in New York City teacher policy in policy areas that may often exist beyond public or journalistic view. Loeb and Miller (2006) stress that ―[s]tates‘ role in teacher labor markets is neither small nor simple. States have passed bundles of laws that reach into every aspect of the teacher workforce‖ (p. ii). Koski (2012), too, emphasizes the state role in teacher policy. He explains that ―the teacher-district employment relationship is directly governed by statutory rules and structured by statute‖: state policies authorize the scope of collective bargaining and ―provide procedures that govern local unionization, bargaining, and dispute resolution,‖ as well as govern some teacher employment terms directly. In other words, the state‘s role in New York City teacher workforce governance is not limited to highly-visible teacher evaluation policies: additional, entirely separate state policies also play a crucial role in governing teachers.
Together, then, a range of state laws and regulations, city laws and regulations, and the collective bargaining agreement make up the district teacher policy system, functioning as the formal employment contract for New York City teachers. The study shows that this policy system includes a range of policies that govern teacher accountability for their credentials, longevity, and ongoing training. It also reveals that teachers‘ accountability for their work (i.e. teaching) is governed by three distinct policy subsystems and their interrelationships: 1) Policies governing the new teacher evaluation system; 2) Teacher due process procedures as stipulated in NY State Law § 3020-a; and 3) Legally-sanctioned union influence exercised both in negotiation of significant policy detail, and in ongoing day-to-day union activity in schools. The following diagram (Figure 1.4) illustrates these three policy subsystems in New York City that together govern teacher accountability for teaching:
The study utilized an original analytical framework that integrates concepts drawn from strategic human resource management theory, legal scholarship, and the new accountability model to analyze the New York City teacher workforce policy system as a comprehensive whole, and build a typology that captures the full range of teacher policies. Policies analyzed included New York State Education Law: Title I (Articles 3, 5, 7), Title 2 (Articles 52, 52-A), Title 4 (Article 61, 63); New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, Title 8: Chapter I (Rules of the Board of Regents) and Chapter II (Regulations of the Commissioner); New York City Department of Education Bylaws; New York City Chancellor‘s Regulations; and the United Federation of Teachers Collective Bargaining Agreement (see Appendices for a complete list of sections and subsections examined). In addition, ten years of decisions issued at the conclusion of § 3020-a due process decisions were obtained with a Freedom of Information Law request, to
Figure 1.4. Model of New York City policy system governing accountability for teaching State- and City-Authorized
District-level UFT Influence
(Initial Policy Negotiation & Ongoing School-based Activity)
New York State Teacher Evaluation Policy
NY State Law § 3020-a Due Process Procedures
NEW YORK CITY TEACHING ACCOUNTABILITY
enable closer analysis of this crucial policy subsystem. Policies governing other public school stakeholders in New York City, such as students, principals, and schools were also analyzed, and the scholarly education literature on teachers and teaching was examined.
Contributions of the Study. This study breaks new ground in largely uncharted research
territory, and makes several contributions to education scholarship:
1. First, the study develops and tests an original and replicable analytical model as one approach to systematic study of a teacher workforce policy system.
2. Second, it establishes new knowledge on New York City‘s teacher policies, utilizing the SHRM framework to illuminate key features of the teacher policy system, and enabling further analysis and evaluation of policies,
3. Third, it illustrates a core thesis explored in the study: that multiple, separate policy subsystems can interact in crucial ways in a particular policy area. The study highlights the importance of studying multiple policy subsystems as parts of a comprehensive whole rather than in isolation.
4. Fourth, it makes an early contribution to the just-developing research program on RTTT, providing district-based analysis of potential constraints on RTTT‘s impact on teaching policy. It provides a case study showing, as scholars have just begun to suggest, that the congruence of district teacher policies with federal and state reform agendas may not be as close as has often been assumed.
5. Fifth, it highlights the critical distinction between teacher evaluation and teacher
accountability, showing that while evaluation is implemented locally, accountability is
Finally, the study explores several propositions central to new institutional theory. The study provides evidence that ―institutionalized schooling‖ has responded to external,
government-driven demands for technical efficiency, as NIT scholars have increasingly argued, along with some degree of deinstitutionalization and reconfiguration of the organization field of public schooling as NIT suggests would occur. Much-increased state influence over school organization and function may well be a harbinger of even greater changes to come. At the same time, however, the findings of this study indicate that buffering of the ―technical core‖ (i.e. teachers and classrooms) still persists to a significant degree in New York City public schooling. Current public school policies in NYC now manifest two separate, concurrently-existing logics: professionalization on the one hand, and the state-driven press for efficiency on the other.
Scope and Limitations of Study. The unit of analysis for this study was the school
district, and the case study method was used to investigate a district teacher policy system. As noted, generalizability of study findings is uncertain, although they provide a starting point for ongoing work in this area, and help point the way to future research directions. In addition, the study was explicitly focused on the design and content of formal, written policies. Stakeholder perceptions of policies and how they are actually implemented ―on the ground‖ was not addressed; while beyond the scope of this study, how written policies play out in practice is clearly an essential part of the teacher policy picture as discussed in Section 1.6 above.
Another limitation of the study arises from the kind of investigation itself, requiring the researcher to closely read and parse thousands of pages of policy documents. Analysis of such a large body of material is time-consuming and complex. Due to the sheer density and quantity of the material investigated, the scope of a single study is necessarily limited, and choices of focus must be made. Further, work in this area is still in very early stages, and the knowledge base
available to draw on is notably weak. Each step of this study required original work. Some important aspects of the topic of teacher policy could thus not be addressed, such as the history of currently-occurring changes, the politics driving those changes, and, as noted, the on-the- ground impact of policies. In addition, there are clearly many ways of approaching this topic that a single study cannot encompass. Theoretical perspectives drawn from several disciplines, including management studies, law, and organizational sociology, were employed in the study. However, additional interpretations and explanations of findings surely exist—from political science, economics, history, and policy studies, among others—that would contribute greatly to understanding of teacher policies.
Finally, teacher policies are in a great state of flux. Yet empirical investigation can only be carried out on what exists, not what is coming down the line. While a study such as this one can provide important baseline data in a little-studied area, it cannot predict what will happen or examine changes still to come. Much of this story is in early stages, and by its very nature the complex topic of teacher work policies—design and content; similarities and differences across states and districts; effects on teachers, students, principals, and schools; possible improvements; history, politics, and evolution over time—lends itself neither to quick work nor easy answers.